[Didymus Much]

Re: Hello

...You're nuts...

...That's funny. I was about to say the same thing to you.

Let me assure you, Deaner isn't nuts.






He's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond that.

[Infinity]

Re: Hello

Science is not about truth but it is based on empirical evidence (which last I heard, empirical evidence was ultimate truth).

Let's test what you last heard. If I stand on a beach and look out over the ocean, I can conclude, based on the emprical evidence of my sight, that the earth is flat. Is that the ultimate truth? It is emperical. To pick this apart further, if i see a masted sailing vessel coming into sight by approaching from the hozion, I first see the masts and then eventually the entire ship. That would tell me the earth isn't flat. That too is empirical.

The point is, evidence can be "empirical" but be incomplete or of insufficient quality from which it draw a conclusion. It can also be wrong - the instrumentality uised to obtain the evidence may be flawed or of limited capability due to the level of technology involved. To the last point, look at how the speed of light is reported over the past century. You'll actually see a trend that would signal the speed of light is decreasing with time so the "emperical" evidence suggests something fundamentally is changing in physics. But if you look at how the measurements were made and the errors associated with them, you realize that it is the technology the enable the measurements getting better is resulting in the trend.

So you need to choose your evidence carefully, and not generalize. And you also have bear in mind that if we are looking for a certain result, we can consciously or subconsiously design a way to produce it.

You're nuts.

That's funny. I was about to say the same thing to you.

[Deaner]

Re: Hello

You need to let go of the idea that science is about 'truth'. Science is about understanding. Scientific fields are based on empirical evidence. It simply does not admit the possibility of absolute proof. All we can do it test, test and (you guess it) test again. Therefore, proof is found only in non-empirical fields like formal logic and mathematics.

You sound like Curly of the Three Stooges.

Science is not about truth but it is based on empirical evidence (which last I heard, empirical evidence was ultimate truth).

You're nuts.

Do you take drugs or have intercourse with same sex people?

[Infinity]

Re: Hello

"Empirical" implies knowledge, and knowledge implies the truth of something. Playing semantic games to bolster your fragile worldview does nothing except assuage your deep-rooted fear of being wrong.

Empirical evidence is, what we interpret it to prove is a different matter. does not admit the possibility of absolute proof. Empirical evidence drives its data by means of direct observation or experiment. Scientific evidence has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

In science, evidence comes in the form of observable facts. Experimentation also yields observations. "observations and experiments."

See above.

You do the same.

So the results keep changing despite the tests remaining the same (per your awkward sentence above), and you are comfortable with that?

Did I state the tests remain the same if the results keep changing?

So in some cases you admit possibility of absolute proof, and in others you deny the possibility of absolute truth.

Astronomy, like all other scientific fields, is based on empirical (observational) evidence. Empiricism simply does not admit the possibility of absolute proof because the very next observation you make may contradict all that came before. For that reason, proofs are found only in non-empirical fields like formal logic and mathematics.

[Zechariah Smyth]

Re: Hello

You need to let go of the idea that science is about 'truth'.

So do you.

Science is about understanding. Scientific fields are based on empirical evidence.

"Empirical" implies knowledge, and knowledge implies the truth of something. Playing semantic games to bolster your fragile worldview does nothing except assuage your deep-rooted fear of being wrong.

It simply does not admit the possibility of absolute proof.

See above.

All we can do it test, test and (you guess [sic] it) test again.

So the results keep changing despite the tests remaining the same (per your awkward sentence above), and you are comfortable with that?

Therefore, proof is found only in non-empirical fields like formal logic and mathematics.

So in some cases you admit possibility of absolute proof, and in others you deny the possibility of absolute truth.



Interesting that the atheist standards for "truth" are as shaky as their situational standards for morals.

YiC,

Zech

[Infinity]

Re: Hello

And how do you reconcile your disgust with that, and so-called Scientific Theory?

You need to let go of the idea that science is about 'truth'. Science is about understanding. Scientific fields are based on empirical evidence. It simply does not admit the possibility of absolute proof. All we can do it test, test and (you guess it) test again. Therefore, proof is found only in non-empirical fields like formal logic and mathematics.

[Zechariah Smyth]

Re: Hello

Hey there, everyone. ^.^
I just joined, and was hoping I could learn a little more about H
God. Thanks!

Please make a thread of your own telling us about your walk with Jesus.

We want to get to know you!

Yours in Christ,

Z. Smyth

[Drunkan the Fox]

Re: Hello

Hey there, everyone. ^.^
I just joined, and was hoping I could learn a little more about H
God. Thanks!

[Zechariah Smyth]

Re: Hello

BLAH BLAH BLAH and not claim that their (sic) true because they haven't been disproven BLAH BLAH BLAH

And how do you reconcile your disgust with that, and so-called Scientific Theory?

Cognitive dissonance much?



YiC,

Zech

[Infinity]

Re: Hello

Sorry Friend
Game
Set
Checkmate

I used to be christian, and I wasn't this stupid. You've just given an argument from ignorance. You need to verify the premises, and not claim that their true because they haven't been disproven, and if you don't understand that, you have no business making claims that you believe something based on the arguments. Let's assume we have no explanation for the origin of the universe. We're now in a position where we have no explanation, and not in a position with theist explanation suddenly becoming plausible for lack of something better. This is the fallacy you are creating.

How does following the Bible make an atheist an atheist?

I was a Christian. Now, I'm an atheist.

Wrong. Atheists only profess not to believe in God. Deep down, you know He exists (Rom 1:18-20) and you hate God (Rom 1:30). It's just like how you used to profess to be a Christian, but deep down you weren't really (Jn 10:28-29).

Wow, that is so deep. And so inaccurate. We really don't think there's a god. Believe it or not, some people actually do disagree with you. I'll post what I said in a number of posts I have done on this thread. there is no sufficient reason(s) for you to believe the Bible is true. When we go to investigate the Bible, not only do we have this problem about not knowing who the authors are, and not having any original copies, we find that the Bible is contradictory to itself in places, contradictory to science and other places, and incorrect to some of historical findings. There is no reason for you to believe the Bible is true. Quoting the Bible isn't going to get you anywhere because you haven't demonstrated why anyone should consider the Bible to be true or authoritative.

What proof or evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct?

Your question is nonsensical. The burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim. You shouldn't believe a thing until a reason is given. Atheism is a lack of theism. I don't see you trying to prove the non-existence of the tooth fairy.

You dismiss Allah. You dismiss Vishnu. You dismiss Buddha. You dismiss Thor.

If you have no concept of sin, you can't be a moral person. Morality is doing whatever God tells you, without regard for your "inner voice." Sin is doing what God has commanded you not to do (1 Jn 3:4), or failing to do what He has commanded you to do (Jas 4:17).

This is a little indecipherable. You think that the system of sin is the only acceptable moral code? That's fine. Go burn down your entire hometown because it probably has a gay guy. Try and get rid of the 13th Amendments as God tells us that slavery is absolutely normal.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Hello

I followed the Bible and it made me an atheist (Like it does to most atheists).

How does following the Bible make an atheist an atheist?

Do you understand that an atheist does not believe a god exist?

Wrong. Atheists only profess not to believe in God. Deep down, you know He exists (Rom 1:18-20) and you hate God (Rom 1:30). It's just like how you used to profess to be a Christian, but deep down you weren't really (Jn 10:28-29).

I'm an atheist not because I love "sin", considering I don't believe it. I'm an atheist because there is no evidence; nor is there a need for a God.

There is a question doing the rounds on YouTube that shifts the burden of proof to the atheist. So far no atheist has been able to answer it.

Are you ready for it?

Here it is...

What proof or evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct?

I'm still a moral person. Do you believe I have no morality in life?

Well, you were the one who said:

Surely, if you are an atheist the concept of sinning does not exist.

If you have no concept of sin, you can't be a moral person. Morality is doing whatever God tells you, without regard for your "inner voice." Sin is doing what God has commanded you not to do (1 Jn 3:4), or failing to do what He has commanded you to do (Jas 4:17).

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Hello

Tell me, of all the people that God has killed and sent to Hell, which one is missed? What contribution to society did we miss out on?

I'll answer the question for you Jim-Bob, none are missed as Our Load has sent none to Hell, as I keep pointing out to you people.

Originally Posted by An Announcement Regarding the Afterlife

3 Darning them to Heck would be a problem for a supposedly intelligent creator.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Hello

Why are there twenty responses to this thread? Should one that said "get lost jerk-off" been sufficient? What are we paying for bandwidth?

Amazing how scared you are of view that challenge yours, if you "god" is so great it would be able to cope with those that don't feel as you do.

See when you follow a real God, like I do, and not a made up one like you do, you can cope with those have not yet accepted to truth and do not need to be so aggressive towards them.

[James Hutchins]

Re: Hello

I can't answer that question ....

Sorry Friend
Game
Set
Checkmate

Jesus wins, again and always!

[Infinity]

Re: Hello

And this misunderstanding was your problem all along; you never knew I Tim 6:20-21...

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

You had no idea that by investigating and opening your mind to possibilities outside of the Bible that the Devil would slip right in and set up shop in your heart. And now here you are.

Because unlike you, we were broken people who just didn't have it together. Our lives were in shambles without a higher power directing us. We needed God to make us complete. But unlike you, we came to acknowledge that we were sick and needed our Spiritual Physician, the Savior (see Matt 9:11-13). You remain stedfast in your defiance of God and Godly standards, which makes you much worse off than we ever were (see John 9:40-41).

In response to what you have stated above, there is no sufficient reason(s) for you to believe the Bible is true. When we go to investigate the Bible, not only do we have this problem about not knowing who the authors are, and not having any original copies, we find that the Bible is contradictory to itself in places, contradictory to science and other places, and incorrect to some of historical findings. There is no reason for you to believe the Bible is true. Quoting the Bible isn't going to get you anywhere because you haven't demonstrated why anyone should consider the Bible to be true or authoritative.

Why are there twenty responses to this thread? Should one that said "get lost jerk-off" been sufficient? What are we paying for bandwidth?

I'm surprised myself on the number of replies I got!